2022 Ohio 2341
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Relator Larry Johnson, an inmate, pleaded guilty to murder in Mahoning C.P. No. 2014 CR 00020 in 2015 and was sentenced to 15 years to life; he did not appeal.
- In May 2021 Johnson filed a motion in the trial court challenging the court's subject-matter jurisdiction; the case was then assigned to Judge Anthony M. D’Apolito.
- Sup.R. 40(A)(3) directs trial courts to rule on motions within 120 days; Johnson argued the court’s delay warranted an extraordinary writ (procedendo/mandamus).
- Johnson filed an original action in the Seventh District seeking a writ to compel a ruling; Respondent moved to dismiss and submitted a file-stamped entry showing the trial judge ruled after the petition was filed.
- The appellate court applied State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier (Sup.R. 40 guides writ analysis but does not itself create a right) and held the petition was moot because the trial court issued a ruling 20 days after the petition was filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an extraordinary writ should issue because the trial court failed to rule within 120 days | Johnson: court’s failure to rule within Sup.R. 40(A)(3) 120-day period constitutes undue delay warranting procedendo/mandamus | Respondent: Sup.R. 40 does not create an enforceable right; courts may take longer for valid reasons | Court: Sup.R. 40 guides the analysis (per Culgan) but does not automatically authorize a writ; no writ granted here |
| Whether the petition is moot after the trial court issued a ruling post-petition | Johnson: relief still necessary because of prior delay | Respondent: petition is moot because the trial court ruled after the writ was filed; no relief remains to grant | Court: Petition is moot; dismissed because the trial court has already performed the challenged act |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield, 70 Ohio St.3d 104 (court may use extraordinary writs to remedy undue delay)
- State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436 (Sup.R. 40 does not create a private right but guides whether delay is undue)
- State ex rel. Doe v. Gallia Cty. Common Pleas Court, 153 Ohio St.3d 623 (procedendo is the appropriate remedy for an inferior court’s failure to dispose of a pending action)
- State ex rel. Howard v. Skow, 102 Ohio St.3d 423 (appellate courts may consider trial-court acts after a petition is filed when assessing mootness)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Dupuis, 98 Ohio St.3d 126 (extrinsic evidence may prove mootness)